了解汇编程序的原因之一是,有时可以使用汇编程序来编写比用高级语言(特别是C语言)编写的代码性能更好的代码。然而,我也听人说过很多次,尽管这并非完全错误,但实际上可以使用汇编程序来生成性能更好的代码的情况极其罕见,并且需要汇编方面的专业知识和经验。

这个问题甚至没有涉及到这样一个事实,即汇编程序指令将是特定于机器的、不可移植的,或者汇编程序的任何其他方面。当然,除了这一点之外,了解汇编还有很多很好的理由,但这是一个需要示例和数据的具体问题,而不是关于汇编程序与高级语言的扩展论述。

谁能提供一些具体的例子,说明使用现代编译器汇编代码比编写良好的C代码更快,并且您能否用分析证据支持这一说法?我相信这些案例确实存在,但我真的很想知道这些案例到底有多深奥,因为这似乎是一个有争议的问题。


当前回答

如果您没有查看编译器生成的内容的反汇编,您实际上无法知道编写良好的C代码是否真的很快。很多时候你会发现“写得好”是主观的。

因此,没有必要用汇编程序来获得最快的代码,但出于同样的原因,了解汇编程序当然是值得的。

其他回答

几乎任何时候编译器看到浮点代码,如果你使用的是旧的糟糕的编译器,手写的版本会更快。(2019年更新:对于现代编译器来说,这并不普遍。特别是在编译x87以外的东西时;编译器更容易使用SSE2或AVX进行标量数学运算,或任何具有平面FP寄存器集的非x86,不像x87的寄存器堆栈。)

主要原因是编译器不能执行任何健壮的优化。关于这个主题的讨论,请参阅来自MSDN的这篇文章。下面是一个例子,其中汇编版本的速度是C版本的两倍(用VS2K5编译):

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <windows.h>

float KahanSum(const float *data, int n)
{
   float sum = 0.0f, C = 0.0f, Y, T;

   for (int i = 0 ; i < n ; ++i) {
      Y = *data++ - C;
      T = sum + Y;
      C = T - sum - Y;
      sum = T;
   }

   return sum;
}

float AsmSum(const float *data, int n)
{
  float result = 0.0f;

  _asm
  {
    mov esi,data
    mov ecx,n
    fldz
    fldz
l1:
    fsubr [esi]
    add esi,4
    fld st(0)
    fadd st(0),st(2)
    fld st(0)
    fsub st(0),st(3)
    fsub st(0),st(2)
    fstp st(2)
    fstp st(2)
    loop l1
    fstp result
    fstp result
  }

  return result;
}

int main (int, char **)
{
  int count = 1000000;

  float *source = new float [count];

  for (int i = 0 ; i < count ; ++i) {
    source [i] = static_cast <float> (rand ()) / static_cast <float> (RAND_MAX);
  }

  LARGE_INTEGER start, mid, end;

  float sum1 = 0.0f, sum2 = 0.0f;

  QueryPerformanceCounter (&start);

  sum1 = KahanSum (source, count);

  QueryPerformanceCounter (&mid);

  sum2 = AsmSum (source, count);

  QueryPerformanceCounter (&end);

  cout << "  C code: " << sum1 << " in " << (mid.QuadPart - start.QuadPart) << endl;
  cout << "asm code: " << sum2 << " in " << (end.QuadPart - mid.QuadPart) << endl;

  return 0;
}

和一些数字从我的PC运行默认版本*:

  C code: 500137 in 103884668
asm code: 500137 in 52129147

出于兴趣,我用dec/jnz交换了循环,它对计时没有影响——有时更快,有时更慢。我想内存有限的方面使其他优化相形见绌。(编者注:更可能的情况是,FP延迟瓶颈足以隐藏循环的额外成本。对奇数/偶数元素并行进行两个Kahan求和,并在最后添加它们,可能会加快2倍的速度。)

哎呀,我正在运行一个稍微不同的代码版本,它输出的数字是错误的(即C更快!)修正并更新了结果。

只有在使用编译器不支持的特殊用途指令集时。

为了最大限度地利用具有多个管道和预测分支的现代CPU的计算能力,您需要以这样一种方式来构造汇编程序:a)人类几乎不可能编写b)甚至更不可能维护。

此外,更好的算法、数据结构和内存管理将为您提供至少一个数量级的性能,而不是在汇编中进行的微观优化。

C语言常常需要做一些从汇编编码员的角度看来不必要的事情,这只是因为C标准这么说。

例如,整数提升。如果你想在C语言中移动一个char变量,人们通常会期望代码实际上只做一个比特的移动。

然而,标准强制编译器在移位之前将符号扩展为int,然后将结果截断为char,这可能会使代码复杂化,这取决于目标处理器的架构。

我很惊讶居然没人这么说。如果用汇编编写strlen()函数,速度会快得多!在C中,你能做的最好的事情就是

int c;
for(c = 0; str[c] != '\0'; c++) {}

在组装过程中,你可以大大加快速度:

mov esi, offset string
mov edi, esi
xor ecx, ecx

lp:
mov ax, byte ptr [esi]
cmp al, cl
je  end_1
cmp ah, cl
je end_2
mov bx, byte ptr [esi + 2]
cmp bl, cl
je end_3
cmp bh, cl
je end_4
add esi, 4
jmp lp

end_4:
inc esi

end_3:
inc esi

end_2:
inc esi

end_1:
inc esi

mov ecx, esi
sub ecx, edi

长度单位是ecx。这一次比较4个字符,所以速度快4倍。并且考虑使用eax和ebx的高阶词,它将比之前的C例程快8倍!

Actually you can build large scale programs in a large model mode segaments may be restricted to 64kb code but you can write many segaments, people give the argument against ASM as it is an old language and we don't need to preserve memory anymore, If that were the case why would we be packing our PC's with memory, the only Flaw I can find with ASM is that it is more or less Processor based so most programs written for the intel architecture Most likely would not run on An AMD Architecture. As for C being faster than ASM there is no language faster than ASM and ASM can do many thing's C and other HLL's can not do at processor level. ASM is a difficult language to learn but once you learn it no HLL can translate it better than you. If you could only see some of the things HLL's Do to you code, and understand what it is doing, you would wonder why More people don't use ASM and why assembers are no longer being updated ( For general public use anyway). So no C is not faster than ASM. Even experiences C++ programmers still use and write code Chunks in ASM added to there C++ code for speed. Other Languages Also that some people think are obsolete or possibly no good is a myth at times for instance Photoshop is written in Pascal/ASM 1st release of souce has been submitted to the technical history museum, and paintshop pro is written still written in Python,TCL and ASM ... a common denominator of these to "Fast and Great image processors is ASM, although photoshop may have Upgraded to delphi now it is still pascal. and any speed problems are comming from pascal but this is because we like the way programs look and not what they do now days. I would like to make a Photoshop Clone in pure ASM which I have been working on and its comming along rather well. not code,interpret,arange,rewwrite,etc.... Just code and go process complete.